Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

277 comments

  • This reads as incredibly condescending, naive and duplicitous, filled with hubris.

    For starters, the whole “yeah sure XMPP got EEE’d but who cares, only nerds cared about that, lol” is not only false (e.g. Jabber), but also does nothing to quell concerns.

    Here’s an account by someone who was in the XMPP trenches when Google started adopting it.

    Notice something? The “omg so cool!”, this is exactly the same as Rochko.

    It’s the hubris when you’re a FOSS maintainer who toiled away for years without recognition and now a $700B+ corporation is flattering him by wanting to use/interact with his work.

    The blog is a far cry from the anti-corporate tone in the informational video from 2018.

    Then there’s the fact that Rochko is extremely tight lipped about the off the record meeting with Meta and consistently refuses to deny having received funds from Meta and refuses to pledge not to accept any funds from Meta.

    There’s also the unsatisfactory answer he gave to people who started questioning some dubious sponsors and the fact that he rushed to lock the thread, killing any further discussion.

    I genuinely think the dude is just so hyped for the perceived recognition, that he lost the thread.

    So much so that he thinks Mastodon is untouchable.

    And it’s extremely naive to think that Meta has benevolent motives here or that Mastodon will survive any schemes Meta might have.
    What’s more realistic is that Mastodon will die because people will flock to Threads if their social graph has moved over.

    Similarly these lofty and naive ideas that people on Threads will make the switch to Mastodon once they get a taste of what it has to offer.

    So now all of a sudden the “difficulty” to get started in Mastodon, that is keeping people who want a polished corporate experience away isn’t going to be an issue?

    Especially when in the “extinguish” phase Meta will have siloed off from Mastodon and its portability function, having to leave their social graph behind?

    It’s all so increasingly naive, one can’t help but wonder if it’s intentional sabotage at this point.

    Mark my words, this’ll be the end of Mastodon especially when Meta can outspend Mastodon all day every day to add proprietary functionality.

    Sure perhaps years from now a few hundred to a few thousand people might still use it, but it will be as irrelevant as XMPP is to most people, and Rochko with it.

    @remindme@mstdn.social in 2 years.

    • I read your comment before I read the blog post and I have to say, I am finding it hard to align it with what's in the blog.

      Aside from the hand-waving comment about XMPP, he does a great job of explaining how everything works, and based on my understanding of the fediverse and its architecture, its all true.

      I dont understand what people think should happen here. If a large corporation wants to join, then there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Its an open protocol. If you want to use Threads, join. If you dont, don't. If you want your server to defederate, tell your admin or join a defederated instance. If you want to federate, tell your admin or join an instance that's federated. If you want to control your own destiny completely, self-host.

      There is tons of choice here and the way it's architected, several layers of protection. I dont get this moral panic everyone has. This is quite literally the point of a decentralized social network.

      At the end of the day, if a large corporation joining the network, kills it, then it was destined to be destroyed from the beginning.

      • The problems I personally have with Meta are:

        1. Data scraping Meta is an ad company and tries to collect as much data from anyone. They are known to make shadow graphs of people not even in their network to try and know as much about as many people possible. This is their business model so they will do it to the fedi.
        2. Moneyed interests They are going to compensate instances that federate with them, which turns people that run instances from volunteers into business owners. From there they can try and dilute admins further into showing ads etc.
        3. Sucking users from the fediverse They will make it easy to get in (import with history when mastodon does not support it), hard to get out (if you go, you can't take your posts) and will hold your connections hostage against you (we will stop fedarating with the other instances now, so if you want to connect to your friends you have to have a threads account, sorry not sorry).

        That and basically all the shit big corps do like make people angry and hacking people's brains to stay on the site for as long as fucking possible. Which they are 100% going to try to do here regardless of our intentions.

      • Aside from the hand-waving comment about XMPP

        “Aside” is doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, it reeks of a nauseating amount of hubris and makes one wonder if they’re suitable to maintain the project at all if they’re so oblivious to potential threats to the project.

        I don’t understand what people think should happen here

        Not roll out the red carpet for starters, and not engage with the company under NDA would be a good second.

        Especially for a FOSS project that receives a healthy amount of contributions from others and likes to tout that it's co-owned by all contributors, it could be argued that it's highly objectionable for one person to engage, essentially as a representative, in non-transparent dealings that are sealed under NDA.

        It really isn't rocket science, here's how the admin of the Fosstodon instance handled it.
        Notice the lack of red carpet, the unwillingness to participate in an "off the record" event and the abundance of transparency towards the people he's responsible for.

        I'm not saying that Rochko should've adopted the same abrasive "lol, get rekt" tone, its up to him if he's comfortable with that, but the points I'm hammering on about above can be achieved in respectful manner as well.

        There is tons of choice here and the way it’s architected, several layers of protection.

        There is no protection. As I've stated in a different comment, t doesn’t take more than 2 seconds of thinking to see how empty the words are that Mastodon is not at risk.

        1. Threads federates with Mastodon instances
        2. Threads uses its massive engineering resources to implement proprietary functionality that’s incompatible with Mastodon instances
        3. A non-trivial number of Mastodon users jump over to Threads, this is the first wave of people that leave Mastodon
        4. Threads drops support for federation and silos itself off
        5. The majority of the remainder of people on Mastodon jump over to Threads because they want to be able to continue to interact with the people that jumped over to Threads and/or because they want to be able to continue to interact with normies now that they’re used to that
        6. Mastodon is effectively dead, safe for a select few that stick to their guns

        3 and 5 will happen in a cascading manner, the more people switch to Threads, the more others will also want to switch.

        At the end of the day, if a large corporation joining the network, kills it, then it was destined to be destroyed from the beginning.

        Perhaps it is destined to be destroyed.

        The concerns and ramifications of a large corporation, or any entity that vastly overshadows the "organic" Mastodon user base in orders of magnitude for that matter, federating with Mastodon have been brought up numerous times by many parties, with the goal of looking for a solutions.

        These concerns weren't only brought up in light of a possible EEE strategy that lead to the death of Mastodon, but also in light of a more Google-esque play where the market share isn't necessarily used to outright kill, but instead to exert control1.

        Every single time it fell on deaf ears (i.e. Rochko ignored it, if not outright killing the discussion), often shrugged off matter of factly that it isn't a risk.

        Also make no mistake, we're talking about a layered issue here.

        A network that can destroy Mastodon against its will due to its sheer size is bad enough.
        Mastodon, by virtue of Rochko, facilitating this from within, adds an entirely new dimension to this.

        1 Google famously bypasses standardization bodies and simply implements their in-house developed standards, leaving other browser engines to get with the program and implement what Google wants, or become irrelevant

        • Its obvious you have some strong feelings about this and it sounds like they come from you wanting Mastodon and the fedivserse to thrive. I respect that. I've enjoyed my time here so far. It would be a shame if it got torpedo'd by a big corp (especially a shitty one like Facebook).

          That said, I don't think anyone has rolled out the red carpet. The FOSS guy's response is great, but meeting with them cost Eugen nothing(except maybe your goodwill). The fact that there was an NDA is a nothingburger. People sign those ALL-THE-TIME. It doesn't mean anything nefarious is happening and it doesn't mean Eugen has "gone to the dark side". It's definitely not "rolling out the red carpet".

          I've also seen a lot of jumping to conclusions and fantastical strawmen at the bottom of everyone's slippery slope arguments. A few of your numbered points would fall into that conclusion jumping bucket, and some of your other points are based on an, imo, misunderstanding of the users of the fediverse.

          For instance, #3 and #5 don't give this community enough credit. The bulk of the people on the fediverse are big proponents of free and open internet, privacy, foss, etc. Most are refugees of Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook to begin with--they aren't just hopping back in bed with Facebook.

          And to that point, why would they all of the sudden care about the social media all of their friends are on? I can almost guarantee that their "normie" friends aren't on the fediverse. The core crowd on Mastodon aren't going anywhere. The crowd that Threads will attract were never coming to Mastodon to begin with.

          Like I said, I just dont get the outrage. Keep on trucking in the fediverse with the community thats here and stop spending so much time Chicken Little-ing.

          edit: Oh for what its worth: https://jogblog.substack.com/p/facebooks-threads-is-so-depressing Thats a hilarious read about Threads and why its already pretty lame.

          • ts obvious you have some strong feelings about this and it sounds like they come from you wanting Mastodon and the fedivserse to thrive. I respect that. I’ve enjoyed my time here so far. It would be a shame if it got torpedo’d by a big corp (especially a shitty one like Facebook).

            Of course, I wanted Mastodon and the fediverse to thrive, if only because it was a once in a lifetime opportunity to dethrone corporations that have a complete disregard of people's wellbeing as long as it turn them a profit.

            Mastodon's figurehead in particular has squandered the opportunity and if not outright self-sabotaged himself.

            My main focus thus far has been Mastodon as oppose to the fediverse as a whole, because Mastodon has a unique challenge that other fediverse projects don't have, namely the social graph.

            People visiting Lemmy don't care and don't know who the person above and below them is, at most they might care that they're not straight up Nazi schmucks and preferably they're someone who has an interest in the topic of the community they're posting in, but that's about it.

            On a "twitterlike" the identity of the people present is of more importance. Which is why I think in particular Mastodon will suffer the most, without knowing exactly if and how the other fediverse projects will be affected by Threads.

            That said, I don’t think anyone has rolled out the red carpet.

            I fail to see how this is the case.

            Even if we ignore everything else, ignore the severe lack of transparency from the side of Rochko, his refusal to deny that he has received funds from Meta and his refusal to pledge not to accept funds in the future, ignore what could've transpired during the meeting with Meta, literally pretend like we are in a vacuum and the only thing related to Meta from his hand is the blog, then the blog alone is a perfect top of the line red carpet that has been rolled out.

            I mean he hails it as a victory and ends with a tacit invitation for other corporations to do the same.

            Just this quote alone is enough of a red carpet being rolled out:

            This is a clear victory for our cause, hopefully one of many to come.

            How much more does someone need to be inviting to be considered to have rolled out a red carpet?

            I’ve also seen a lot of jumping to conclusions and fantastical strawmen at the bottom of everyone’s slippery slope arguments. A few of your numbered points would fall into that conclusion jumping bucket, and some of your other points are based on an, imo, misunderstanding of the users of the fediverse.

            For instance, #3 and #5 don’t give this community enough credit. The bulk of the people on the fediverse are big proponents of free and open internet, privacy, foss, etc. Most are refugees of Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook to begin with–they aren’t just hopping back in bed with Facebook.

            And to that point, why would they all of the sudden care about the social media all of their friends are on? I can almost guarantee that their “normie” friends aren’t on the fediverse. The core crowd on Mastodon aren’t going anywhere. The crowd that Threads will attract were never coming to Mastodon to begin with.

            Respectfully, this is difficult to read with a straight face after having experienced first hand the effects the Threads launch have had on my Mastodon timeline.

            I follow close to 2k people on Mastodon and it used to be that at any given time I could open my timeline and 400+ posts were waiting on me to peruse.

            It's completely dead now, no more than 20 or so posts showed up in total for the entire day, this after a day where there was a sea of people posting a link to their Threads profile.

            Safe for a few holdouts I can count on one hand, nearly everyone created a Threads account and they're more active there than I've ever seen them on Mastodon.

            If anything, it seems like I gave the people on Mastodon too much credit and I've underestimated how strong the network effect is, since I thought it would at least take until the actual "embrace" phase of it all i.e. until Meta would be ActivityPub compatible.

            And it's not like the vast majority of people I follow are normies or anything.
            About 90% of them are software engineers like myself not afraid to tinker with things and deal with the "difficulty" of making a Mastodon account.

            Hell, about a 100 of them run their own instance, one of which is the one I'm on and a good chunk of them are very active in the FOSS community themselves.

            Sure, some of it might be because of the hype and novelty, so some might come back, but if anything that proves my point that they'll happily jump ship if Meta does decide to nix the compatibility in the future.

            And this is me being generous, like I said activity by people that moved to Threads has skyrocketed, not only did entire social graphs migrate to Threads, they were made whole again.
            People that weren't seen for ages since leaving Twitter popped up there much to many people's delight.

            Most people that migrated to Mastodon wanted a 1:1 Twitter replacement first and foremost and took the ideology as a nice bonus.

            These are people that built a support network on Twitter, people that built a professional network on Twitter, people that built a network of peers, in short, a network that was important if not essential to them.

            If I take myself as an example, an indie iOS dev, before I left Twitter I used it to stay in touch with friends I had in my industry, other indie devs, engineers at Apple, journalists covering and reviewing apps, local organizations and affiliated people working towards social justice, national organizations and affiliated people working towards social justice and then the rest was purely to ingest information and news.

            The purpose of being in touch with these people varied, from comparing notes on how to best do my work, socializing with friends, arranging collaborations on projects, keeping track of what others were working on, promoting my own work, getting help from Apple engineers when I hit a snag, helping people get a job at places that were looking for someone, staying in the loop in case I wanted/needed a job, staying in the loop about local organizing and coordinating with organizers, etc. etc.

            I was lucky that I happened to work in a field that is tech savvy and so most of my social graph, but not all, transitioned to Mastodon.

            Many people weren't this lucky and even the people in my social graph that transitioned had a considerable chunk of people that wasn't entirely enamored by Mastodon.
            Personally I welcomed the change of pace, but I couldn't deny that their gripes were valid.

            So to circle back to your comments about the core crowd and the crowd that Threads attracts:

            The core crowd on Mastodon aren’t going anywhere. The crowd that Threads will attract were never coming to Mastodon to begin with.

            Unless you by "core crowd" you refer to what Rochko called "nerd circles", then I'm afraid you're wrong on this.
            Just as you're wrong on the crowd that Threads attracts, because not only "were" they coming on Mastodon, they literally were on Mastodon until recently.

            Somehow this statement by Rochko is now even more laughable in hindsight:

            Well, even if Threads abandoned ActivityPub down the line, where we would end up is exactly where we are now. XMPP did not exist on its own outside of nerd circles, while ActivityPub enjoys the support and brand recognition of Mastodon.

            Not only was Mastodon already heavily slanted towards "nerd circles" at the time these words were published, but it will only become more of a "nerd circle" from here on out.
            ActivityPub hasn't even been enabled on Threads and Mastodon isn't "where we are now".

            edit: Oh for what its worth: https://jogblog.substack.com/p/facebooks-threads-is-so-depressing Thats a hilarious read about Threads and why its already pretty lame.

            While a funny writing style, it comes across as uninformed.

            As much as I wish it was the shitshow as depicted in that blog post, I'm sad to say that those were for all intents and purposes just placeholder posts, as soon as you start following people you won't really see those anymore.

            Call it Chicken Little-ing, call it FUD, call it whatever you want.

            My timeline is dead and pretty much my social graph is happy they've found their precious Twitter replacement, so other than a very niche group, I'd say Mastodon is dead.

            I might not like it, but I'm not gonna pretend like the blog you linked is based in reality while I stare out the window at the cool kids having fun like I'm Squidward

          • I disagree with your threat assessment, but thanks for that link, it was indeed a good read.

      • The sanest comment here.

    • Excellent post, and it is truly heartbreaking stuff. We know Eugen signed an NDA with Meta which just seals the deal for me given the other refusals to answer basic questions. I think he is probably a person who is finding validation for something he's worked on for a very long time, and Meta is blinding him. But that's what they do. They are emotional manipulators by trade.

      Mark my words, this’ll be the end of Mastodon especially when Meta can outspend Mastodon all day every day to add proprietary functionality

      This is exactly what happened with RCS. Sure, it is an open standard. But Google EEE'd it by adding proprietary functionality using their near unlimited budget and influence, then built it all around their own proprietary middleware, like Jive, to lock out others. Some of the most popular messaging apps, including Signal, had been begging Google for RCS access for years. Google refuses, because they firmly control it now. Only a handful of partners get to access the supposedly "open" standard which Google has co-opted. Sure, you could pour resources into the old, unmaintained RCS standard from over a decade ago. Before Google essentially killed it by moving proprietary and snuffing it out. But then it wouldn't work with Google's RCS, and Google's RCS is what people know as RCS at this point.

      Meta will do the same thing with ActivityPub specifically, and decentralized social media in general. They will EEE their way to the finish line. They will wall it all off and prevent account portability and cross-communication outside of a preferred partner network. I could see them walling it off to the Meta-owned properties as they seek ways to further tie Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp together under a common protocol which they've EEE'd.

    • The whole XMPP was used by nerds thing really showed how full of hubris he is, agreed.

      This is going to end in a disaster, and this blog post from him will be linked at for decades to come to try and warn the next generation the next time we need to do something like this.

      And the cycle will repeat.

    • @remindme@mstdn.social 1 year

277 comments